Whether Steagald v. United States protects an arrestee in a third party's residence

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : Petitioner Tyrone Cammon had a failure to appear warrant pending. Police received a tip that he was staying at his sister’s residence so they staked it out. At one point, police observed and identified Petitioner coming out of the residence, going to a car and retrieving something. Police could have but did not arrest him at that point. Instead, they waited until he went back into his sister’s residence and then entered the residence without a search warrant, arrested Petitioner and seized drug and gun evidence in a purported “protective sweep”. Counsel filed a motion to suppress arguing, inter alia, that Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981) required that the evidence seized in the protective sweep be suppressed. The lower courts rejected this argument and held that Steagald only protected Petitioner’s sister whose residence the police had entered. The courts held that case was controlled instead by Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) which allows police to enter an arrestee’s residence armed only with an arrest warrant. The question whether Steagald protects an arrestee in a third party’s residence was specifically left open in Steagald and has never been decided by this Court. 1.) Whether, in light of Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 96-97 (1990)., the lower courts erred in holding that Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) controlled the lawfulness of the warrantless search of the third party residence for Petitioner-Arrestee instead of Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (1981)? 2.) Where multiple additional errors affected petitioner’s conviction and/or sentence in the courts below, should this Court exercise it’s supervisory power to vacate his conviction and sentence? i | ‘ a | ,